Question 1:
I chose the Charles Perrault version of "Little Red Riding Hood" to discuss. After having read the other versions of this story, I thought it was interesting that Perrault's version ended just as Little Red Riding Hood was eaten and wasn't saved, unlike the Grimm brothers' version "Little Red Cap", for example, in which a huntsman cut open the wolf's stomach and saved both the grandmother and Little Red Cap. This difference, I think, makes Perrault's moral of the story more important and recognizable than the Grimm brothers'. It seems as though Perrault's version puts more emphasis on the consequence in the moral whereas the Grimm brothers puts more emphasis on the redemption in the moral. Perrault says "Children, especially attractive, well bred young ladies, should never talk to strangers, for if they should do so, they may well provide dinner for a wolf.” This shows consequence of one's actions. The Grimm brothers have Little Red Cap say "As long as I live, I will never leave the path and run off into the woods by myself if mother tells me not to.” This shows redeeming oneself of one's actions, and having knowledge of doing the right thing next time.
Question 2:
In the Charles Perrault version of "Little Red Riding Hood", the protagonist Little Red Riding Hood is faced with internal and external conflicts. The internal conflict is that Little Red Riding Hood chooses to take the "roundabout way” instead of going immediately to see her sick grandmother. In taking this wrong route, she lets the wolf take the "shortest path" to easily get to her grandmother's house and eat her up. She wanted to have fun, like any little girl would, "entertaining herself by gathering nuts, running after butterflies, and gathering bouquets of little flowers". I think that there's another internal conflict present, when Little Red Riding Hood arrives at her grandmother's house and hears the wolf's voice instead of her grandmother's. She has a quick realization that something is wrong, in which she is afraid of hearing "the big voice of the wolf", but passes it off for her grandmother's sick and "hoarse" voice. This conflict illustrates Little Red Riding Hood's innocence, in that she is so naive that she doesn't truly suspect anything of consequence. The external conflict is simply that the wolf eats Little Red Riding Hood, after a conversation of how he looks so much different from her grandmother.
I see your point on how these stories are based on morals and basically learning from things that go wrong for these characters in these stories. However, at the same time, I feel sort of bad for the characters and how if they mess up one time, they have no way of fixing it. It's just my preference that the characters should be able to have a second chance like in "Little Red Cap."
ReplyDeleteI also read the Charles Perrault version of "Little Red Ridding Hood" I also thought that Perrault illustrated more of a moral to the story compared to the version that the Grimm brothers wrote. It seems as though a child who reads the Perrault version would be more aware of there surroundings as they grow older compared to those who read the Grimm brothers' version of the story. One who reads Perraults version may look at the story as one should always be aware of all "wolves" even those who seem nice, because was a young girl is caught by the "wolf" all is lost. But one who read the Grimm's brothers' version may think that if I mess up it will be okay, because I'll get a second chance and I'll find a nice a guy whoi will come and save me from the bad "wolf."
ReplyDelete